You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

^ So? How is that in any way a bad thing. The team sucks, i'd much rather us roll the dice on any other corner because we know what we have (almost nothing) in Pat Lee. He might stick and show promise. He might not. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

And it's a good thing to cut a player to make room for someone you end up cutting 2 weeks later? In those 2 weeks, you realized the guy you made room for wasn't worth it? It doesn't speak to a lack of planning? Is that how you build a team? The only complaint about cutting Lee when it happened was that he had shown more than Bartell at this point and that he could at least go back to his original role, which was being a cheap backup for this season or allow Huff to go back to FS where the coaching staff and the front office think he belongs. Turns out Bartell was really not any better and he got cut as well. The original complaint was legit and it has been proven by Bartell's release.
This is just how it went down and it happened twice. None of the players matter, the thought process does._________________

^ So? How is that in any way a bad thing. The team sucks, i'd much rather us roll the dice on any other corner because we know what we have (almost nothing) in Pat Lee. He might stick and show promise. He might not. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

And it's a good thing to cut a player to make room for someone you end up cutting 2 weeks later? In those 2 weeks, you realized the guy you made room for wasn't worth it? It doesn't speak to a lack of planning? Is that how you build a team? The only complaint about cutting Lee when it happened was that he had shown more than Bartell at this point and that he could at least go back to his original role, which was being a cheap backup for this season or allow Huff to go back to FS where the coaching staff and the front office think he belongs. Turns out Bartell was really not any better and he got cut as well. The original complaint was legit and it has been proven by Bartell's release.
This is just how it went down and it happened twice. None of the players matter, the thought process does.

^ So? How is that in any way a bad thing. The team sucks, i'd much rather us roll the dice on any other corner because we know what we have (almost nothing) in Pat Lee. He might stick and show promise. He might not. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

And it's a good thing to cut a player to make room for someone you end up cutting 2 weeks later? In those 2 weeks, you realized the guy you made room for wasn't worth it? It doesn't speak to a lack of planning? Is that how you build a team? The only complaint about cutting Lee when it happened was that he had shown more than Bartell at this point and that he could at least go back to his original role, which was being a cheap backup for this season or allow Huff to go back to FS where the coaching staff and the front office think he belongs. Turns out Bartell was really not any better and he got cut as well. The original complaint was legit and it has been proven by Bartell's release.
This is just how it went down and it happened twice. None of the players matter, the thought process does.

I get where you're coming from but at the same time after thinking about it more, I'm not as concerned/heated about the move any more. I agree it was a bad one, but maybe he was just banking on Bartell, a veteran with past success, picking it up. Obviously he didn't, but the logic behind it isn't as stupid as I once thought it was. Lee clearly had been better this season imo but its reasonable to assume Bartell was going to be better upon returning from injury. I still disagree with the move but I realize he's a rookie GM just like DA is a rookie HC. And he's already done a good job with the cap. He's going to have some screw ups but hopefully he learns from them. Let's face it, Lee isn't going to be anything more than a decent starter at best in the NFL and if that's all we missed out on -- a player who might become an ok starter then I can live with it. I'm gonna cut him some slack and look the other way on this one.

^ So? How is that in any way a bad thing. The team sucks, i'd much rather us roll the dice on any other corner because we know what we have (almost nothing) in Pat Lee. He might stick and show promise. He might not. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

And it's a good thing to cut a player to make room for someone you end up cutting 2 weeks later? In those 2 weeks, you realized the guy you made room for wasn't worth it? It doesn't speak to a lack of planning? Is that how you build a team? The only complaint about cutting Lee when it happened was that he had shown more than Bartell at this point and that he could at least go back to his original role, which was being a cheap backup for this season or allow Huff to go back to FS where the coaching staff and the front office think he belongs. Turns out Bartell was really not any better and he got cut as well. The original complaint was legit and it has been proven by Bartell's release.
This is just how it went down and it happened twice. None of the players matter, the thought process does.

They went with a vet in Bartel. He's looked good in the past, good early for the Raiders so you go with the guy who EARNED the starting job in camp. It's that simple.

The issue would be if he continued to struggle and they kept forcing him into the starting role. They recognized he wasn't regaining form and made the move.

The thought process is simple. You cut a backup with no ST value for the vet who earned the starting spot originally. Vet didn't regain form, cut him. The thought process was, neither CB is part of the future. Try and find a CB who is._________________

They went with a vet in Bartel. He's looked good in the past, good early for the Raiders so you go with the guy who EARNED the starting job in camp. It's that simple.

The issue would be if he continued to struggle and they kept forcing him into the starting role. They recognized he wasn't regaining form and made the move.

The thought process is simple. You cut a backup with no ST value for the vet who earned the starting spot originally. Vet didn't regain form, cut him. The thought process was, neither CB is part of the future. Try and find a CB who is.

Bartell never looked good early for the Raiders. He was toasted on opening night and went to IR. He didn't earn anything, he wasn't getting paid twice as much as any other CB on the roster to ride the bench.

I'm glad they recognized it because it was plain to see for everybody. Their job isn't to find that out on gameday though._________________

They went with a vet in Bartel. He's looked good in the past, good early for the Raiders so you go with the guy who EARNED the starting job in camp. It's that simple.

The issue would be if he continued to struggle and they kept forcing him into the starting role. They recognized he wasn't regaining form and made the move.

The thought process is simple. You cut a backup with no ST value for the vet who earned the starting spot originally. Vet didn't regain form, cut him. The thought process was, neither CB is part of the future. Try and find a CB who is.

Bartell never looked good early for the Raiders. He was toasted on opening night and went to IR. He didn't earn anything, he wasn't getting paid twice as much as any other CB on the roster to ride the bench.

I'm glad they recognized it because it was plain to see for everybody. Their job isn't to find that out on gameday though.

He got beat once deep by Meachem. Once. Hardly reason to give up early. He was fine in camp and preseason sparingly and he had the pedigree of a good CB coming in.

Again. You have no argument. The Raiders had no CB talent in 2012 tried to put a bandaid on the position in 2013 with any warm body. Lee, Bartel, DVD .... these guys were not a long term solution. Moving on, trying other young players was the right move. You have to continue to evaluate until you find a solution.

You're crying because of how it was handled. Who cares? Lee offered nothing, Bartel, nothing. They had to flesh that out. What was the solution? Not exactly a starting caliber CB waiting to be snatched off the waiver wire was there?_________________

They went with a vet in Bartel. He's looked good in the past, good early for the Raiders so you go with the guy who EARNED the starting job in camp. It's that simple.

The issue would be if he continued to struggle and they kept forcing him into the starting role. They recognized he wasn't regaining form and made the move.

The thought process is simple. You cut a backup with no ST value for the vet who earned the starting spot originally. Vet didn't regain form, cut him. The thought process was, neither CB is part of the future. Try and find a CB who is.

Bartell never looked good early for the Raiders. He was toasted on opening night and went to IR. He didn't earn anything, he wasn't getting paid twice as much as any other CB on the roster to ride the bench.

I'm glad they recognized it because it was plain to see for everybody. Their job isn't to find that out on gameday though.

He got beat once deep by Meachem. Once. Hardly reason to give up early. He was fine in camp and preseason sparingly and he had the pedigree of a good CB coming in.

Again. You have no argument. The Raiders had no CB talent in 2012 tried to put a bandaid on the position in 2013 with any warm body. Lee, Bartel, DVD .... these guys were not a long term solution. Moving on, trying other young players was the right move. You have to continue to evaluate until you find a solution.

You're crying because of how it was handled. Who cares? Lee offered nothing, Bartel, nothing. They had to flesh that out. What was the solution? Not exactly a starting caliber CB waiting to be snatched off the waiver wire was there?

I have no argument because you don't agree with it or just can't understand it? Let me see. Your argument is that in order to evaluate other young players you have to get rid of some players. I think i missed when we added someone to evaluate at the position following those moves.

I'm not crying, i'm forced to explain the reasoning since people seem to think the complaints are over losing Lee when it's not.
The solution? What are we talking about now?_________________

I have no argument because you don't agree with it or just can't understand it? Let me see. Your argument is that in order to evaluate other young players you have to get rid of some players. I think i missed when we added someone to evaluate at the position following those moves.

Evaluated Lee, cut Lee. Further evaluated Bartell, cut Bartell. In the process of evaluating Adams and Ross (who was signed early this season). Again, with no viable starting option, they are going to look at them all and see who's worth keeping around.

oakdb36 wrote:

I'm not crying, i'm forced to explain the reasoning since people seem to think the complaints are over losing Lee when it's not.
The solution? What are we talking about now?

My issue is people think cutting Lee was a bad move and act as if it's a black eye on Reggie's resume. That is just ignorant. They are crying over cutting a bad player with no future value to evaluate others.

If the Raiders were in playoff contention and cutting players who are starting, then I might raise and eyebrow. Right now, I don't care. Do what ever you need to do to find the right players for 2013 to win games._________________

Ross is playing Lee's role and then some. And playing it better. End of story, and the non-descript end of Pat Lee. Believe me, we will survive the deep loss that is Pat Lee.

Again, this isn't about Pat Lee, this is about cutting player(s) to make room for player(s) who ended up being cut a couple weeks later as well.

No, it's not. It's about you making it about that.

Ultimately noone cares who was kept at the expense of Pat Lee. Because Pat Lee sucked and they sucked too. And in the end, Brandian Ross, Phillip Adams, and Joselio Hanson are the best 3 of the CBs we have had this year. And lo and behold, they are the ones still here.

And once again, Pat Lee's role was filled by Ross now, who is filling it better.

Please explain to me what the significance is of cutting one player to make room for a guy who was cut weeks later? In my mind, it's quick and relentless house cleaning. Where we ended up with the best players out of the bunch. You seem to have a problem with it, but I am really struggling to wonder what that problem is. Or if you just like to argue about it for the sake of it. Step back and realize losing Pat Lee means nothing, cutting Bartell means nothing, and sifting through this trash is best done with quick and decisive cuts, one after another if need be.

And noone really cares about the thought process. It's like an above poster said, cut Lee after evaluation. Return Bartell to starting role, cut Bartell when he doesn't perform.
Pay more attention to the thought process of a GM who is only concerned with performance, and giving every play the opportunity to perform in the order in which best suits the team, not you.
I'd say the thought process makes perfect sense. Bartell comes back, he has a higher record of success than Lee, so Lee goes. You don't know, maybe Ross started showing something just after that and coupled with Bartell's mistakes, bye bye Bartell.

You're just bent out of shape by something you think you know. But you don't know the thought process, because you are discounting quite a few facets that go into such decisions. Ultimately, you'd be a happier fan if you looked at what matters. Bartell and Lee both suck and have no future in Oakland. Ross already looks better, so as far as you should be concerned, it's a good set of decisions for the team.

Ross is playing Lee's role and then some. And playing it better. End of story, and the non-descript end of Pat Lee. Believe me, we will survive the deep loss that is Pat Lee.

Again, this isn't about Pat Lee, this is about cutting player(s) to make room for player(s) who ended up being cut a couple weeks later as well.

No, it's not. It's about you making it about that.

You must be kidding me. You think i don't know what i was complaining about? Yeah, that's the reason i have a problem with this move, i'm quite sure of that. You think the issue i (and others) have is losing the great Pat Lee. Sorry, but it isn't. Some people like to simplify others' thoughts in order to argue a point. It sounds exactly like people saying criticizing Palmer is putting all the blame on him. Now saying i have a problem with the moves is supposed to mean i think Pat Lee was a great player.
And now you're telling me i'm the one making something out of it when the whole discussion is coming from people who assumed they know what the complaining was about?